Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Pascal Siakam

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DanH
    replied
    golden wrote: View Post

    So we are in agreement. My point is/was only about MLSE cheapness and greed, i.e., avoiding the tax vs. putting talent on the roster to reward the fans.

    The other stuff is just a sidebar and semantics.
    I wasn't really engaging with you until you jumped in midway through. Mars made a post that the entire point of the Thad deal was to duck the tax, which I tried to correct (it absolutely was not just that).

    Leave a comment:


  • golden
    replied
    slaw wrote: View Post

    The Dragic trade was also about the front office saving face.
    Yep, in part because it was connected to trading the franchise icon, Lowry.

    Leave a comment:


  • golden
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post

    They went with the option that avoided the tax versus the one that meant committing to the tax. Absolutely. That's not flexibility, that's deciding to pay the tax for that team.

    Not that they made a move to create flexibility. They made the move for other reasons, because they didn't need to create flexibility, they already had that. They MAINTAINED the flexibility they had.
    So we are in agreement. My point is/was only about MLSE cheapness and greed, i.e., avoiding the tax vs. putting talent on the roster to reward the fans.

    The other stuff is just a sidebar and semantics.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanH
    replied
    planetmars wrote: View Post

    Yeah.. but they went with the flexible option over the one that would actually help the team win games. Which is the point golden and I are trying to make here.
    They went with the option that avoided the tax versus the one that meant committing to the tax. Absolutely. That's not flexibility, that's deciding to pay the tax for that team.

    Not that they made a move to create flexibility. They made the move for other reasons, because they didn't need to create flexibility, they already had that. They MAINTAINED the flexibility they had.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanH
    replied
    planetmars wrote: View Post

    Not enough if they wanted to guarantee Champagnie and bring in a person from the buy-out market. That would require around $4M.
    No, it wouldn't. Minimum salaries pro-rate throughout the season. By the time they were playing in the buyout market odds are a vet min would have been in the 500k-1M range and a rookie minimum for Champagnie would have been like 150k.

    Leave a comment:


  • planetmars
    replied
    slaw wrote: View Post

    The Dragic trade was also about the front office saving face.
    Yeah.. but they went with the flexible option over the one that would actually help the team win games. Which is the point golden and I are trying to make here.

    Leave a comment:


  • slaw
    replied
    planetmars wrote: View Post

    They saved $5M under the tax with this deal. That's enough to go find someone in the buyout market, bring them in and stay under that tax, and give a 2-way a guaranteed deal. Those options would be gone. They didn't end up using that flexibility but they wouldn't have had it if they didn't do anything with Dragic's contract or even buy him out themselves (he wasn't going to give the Raptors a single penny, so the most they would give up would the the vet minimum).
    The Dragic trade was also about the front office saving face.

    Leave a comment:


  • planetmars
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post

    2M is enough for all of that. None of those options would be gone with a buyout. That's the vet minimum.

    Pretty sure Dragic would have played ball on a buyout.
    Not enough if they wanted to guarantee Champagnie and bring in a person from the buy-out market. That would require around $4M.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanH
    replied
    planetmars wrote: View Post

    They saved $5M under the tax with this deal. That's enough to go find someone in the buyout market, bring them in and stay under that tax, and give a 2-way a guaranteed deal. Those options would be gone. They didn't end up using that flexibility but they wouldn't have had it if they didn't do anything with Dragic's contract or even buy him out themselves (he wasn't going to give the Raptors a single penny, so the most they would give up would the the vet minimum).
    2M is enough for all of that. None of those options would be gone with a buyout. That's the vet minimum.

    Pretty sure Dragic would have played ball on a buyout.

    Leave a comment:


  • planetmars
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post

    What flexibility? Please explain this to me.

    Who could they add between the trade deadline and the end of the season that would cost them more than the 2M flexibility they could create with a buyout?

    You keep just saying flexibility without trying to define what flexibility they added. They didn't. They really, truly didn't. They did not add the ability to do ANYTHING with the Thad trade that they couldn't have done with a buyout. If you don't add any ability to do anything, you didn't add flexibility.

    I'm not disagreeing with your overall point about flexibility. I'm saying this deal is a terrible example of it, and if every move they made was exactly as much about flexibility as this deal then your overall point would be completely wrong (it isn't, just your use of this deal as an example is).
    They saved $5M under the tax with this deal. That's enough to go find someone in the buyout market, bring them in and stay under that tax, and give a 2-way a guaranteed deal. Those options would be gone. They didn't end up using that flexibility but they wouldn't have had it if they didn't do anything with Dragic's contract or even buy him out themselves (he wasn't going to give the Raptors a single penny, so the most they would give up would the the vet minimum).

    Leave a comment:


  • DanH
    replied
    planetmars wrote: View Post

    The Raptors didn't want to just be $2M and $19K under the tax. First not doing anything with their trade asset would create a mob outside their door. But they wanted more flexibility. It's pretty straight forward. I don't know why you don't think that it would have helped. I mean again as Grange said they could have converted a 2-way into a regular contract. They could have found a guy in the buyout market. They didn't, but they could have.

    They like having flexibility. Not using that flexibility is a different story. We've seen that before. But they still wanted it. It's something they crave if I had to be honest.

    If you want to deny it that's fine. But I've seen this front office in action for awhile now. Most moves they make always take flexibility into the equation. You can say its prudent. But in some ways its costly. Like it was in 2022.
    What flexibility? Please explain this to me.

    Who could they add between the trade deadline and the end of the season that would cost them more than the 2M flexibility they could create with a buyout?

    You keep just saying flexibility without trying to define what flexibility they added. They didn't. They really, truly didn't. They did not add the ability to do ANYTHING with the Thad trade that they couldn't have done with a buyout. If you don't add any ability to do anything, you didn't add flexibility.

    I'm not disagreeing with your overall point about flexibility. I'm saying this deal is a terrible example of it, and if every move they made was exactly as much about flexibility as this deal then your overall point would be completely wrong (it isn't, just your use of this deal as an example is).

    Leave a comment:


  • planetmars
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post

    They could buy out Dragic and get 2M in room without making a trade. More than enough to add a buyout guy and convert a 2-way.

    Instead they made the trade to get Thad. The trade was right at the deadline, so they did not actually add any usable flexibility by making the trade.

    I have no issue with this being a critique of the team overall. Categorizing this trade as a flexibility trade, or a tax ducking trade, is simply wrong though.
    The Raptors didn't want to just be $2M and $19K under the tax. First not doing anything with their trade asset would create a mob outside their door. But they wanted more flexibility. It's pretty straight forward. I don't know why you don't think that it would have helped. I mean again as Grange said they could have converted a 2-way into a regular contract. They could have found a guy in the buyout market. They didn't, but they could have.

    They like having flexibility. Not using that flexibility is a different story. We've seen that before. But they still wanted it. It's something they crave if I had to be honest.

    If you want to deny it that's fine. But I've seen this front office in action for awhile now. Most moves they make always take flexibility into the equation. You can say its prudent. But in some ways its costly. Like it was in 2022.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanH
    replied
    golden wrote: View Post

    Raptors just don't do buyouts.... especially not the size of Dragic' salary. That's another financial line they don't cross for whatever reason.
    Very rarely is there a reason to buy out a player. Dragic was a case where they absolutely could have.

    Not sure what financial line you are talking about. You tend to save money in a buyout.

    Leave a comment:


  • golden
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post

    They could buy out Dragic and get 2M in room without making a trade. More than enough to add a buyout guy and convert a 2-way.

    Instead they made the trade to get Thad. The trade was right at the deadline, so they did not actually add any usable flexibility by making the trade.

    I have no issue with this being a critique of the team overall. Categorizing this trade as a flexibility trade, or a tax ducking trade, is simply wrong though.
    Raptors just don't do buyouts.... especially not the size of Dragic' salary. That's another financial line they don't cross for whatever reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • golden
    replied
    planetmars

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X